Terms & Conditions

[Anonymous]

Morning all,

We discover that a claimant has moved out of the property he is claiming for. There is no forwarding address, no one knows where he has gone. Do we suspend benefit and seek further info (with little hope of hearing from the clt) then terminate after a month or;

Do we make some kind of adverse inference that he has left the borough or is no longer liable to pay rent anywhere?

Decisions and Appeals Regs or Adverse inference? My feeling is the former. I’m not comfortable with assuming what the clt has done but it’s only just worse than writing to a place when I know he ain’t there. Okay, he might come back for his post but it’s unlikely.

Any ideas, any one?

Cheers,

Darren

[janish]

just make a superseding decision to end his award from whatever date you have grounds to use ( you could just use the date you found out he had gone, if that’s all you have—Sunday at the end of that week )

[Anonymous]

But Janis, on what basis are we to supersede? We don’t [i:91dcb971f6]know[/i:91dcb971f6] he’s no longer liable for rent somewhere. I have no evidence to say that he is no longer entitled, just a lack of evidence to say that he is.

[markp]

I think what Janis is saying is exactly that – you don’t know that there is a liability so you make a siuperseding decision using an adverse inference that there is no liability to pay rent or that there is no longer any entitlement to benefit.

Notify claimant at address held and await contact.

Apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick (nothing unusual there!)

Do I know what I'm doing? The jury's out on that........................

[Anonymous]

Hi Mark,

No, you’re on the right lines, I just need convincing.

The tribunal of commissioners decision in CH/2155/2003 et al, which (I think) introduced the concept of adverse inference, was concerned with effective and defective claims. Does the principle of adverse inference extend to this circumstance? Or am I disappearing up my own backside? (It has been known……)

Surely adverse inference on new claims relies on information being requested in the first place; because you have not provided the proof of your capital that I asked for, I have assumed that your capital is to high for you to be entitled to benefit. Otherwise we could assume anything, and there would be no point in suspending under regs 11 or 13 of the DAR.

A31/04 (no, don’t start, I didn’t write the blasted thing, just answered emails) stated about ending or suspending, “end the award if you are satisfied there is no longer an entitlement to benefit. You make a superseding decision to end the award. This would commonly include cases when someone is known to have left the authority’s area or the customer has died.” (Para 12.) The intent there is that though that you need to be satisfied there is no further entitlement to benefit, we should not assume the person has left the borough, or is no longer liable for rent, just because they have not yet contacted us.

I want to minimise our BVPI78b; I need to be convinced that we don’t need to suspend-and-terminate ‘cos we get a lot of folk doing a bunk round here.

Anymore for any more?

[markp]

I think it does as there is no proven liability.

That’s my view, anyhow.

Do I know what I'm doing? The jury's out on that........................

[gerryg]

I can see why Darren is having second thoughts on this. I don’t think adverse inferences should be used to start terminating awards. Why do we have DAR 11 otherwise?

My advice would be to suspend using DAR 11 as there is an issue as to whether the conditions for entitlement are fulfilled. No-one knows for certain that he no longer has a liability to pay rent in the LA area.

Then send a letter to the last known address asking him to confirm his new circumstances but do not use a DNR envelope to send it. It may well get forwarded or the claimant may return to collect his post. Unlikely but you should give it a shot.

If he doesn’t reply (as is probable) then terminate.

I know it sounds long winded but I think it’s the right thing to do in the circumstances.

[chrisb]

I’m with Darren and Gerry.

You can only supersede if you [b:6f5f5e653e]know[/b:6f5f5e653e] there’s no longer a liability. While you are waiting to find out you can suspend, and then terminate if no reply.

Why is this any different from notification of end of IS/JSA?

[peterdelamothe]

I agree wityh suspend but what about subsequent date of termination? Just using the next Sunday date cannot be right imo.

[gerryg]

Why can’t the Sunday date not be right, Peter?

[janish]

chrisb
End of IS/JSA, you’ve got the date it ended. Suspend because an issue arises whether previous decision should be superseded.

If they don’t return the info you can supersede using the IS end date as grounds. ( and this can be revised later if they turn up with the info).

I don’t see Darren’s scenario any differently
(imo ofcourse!)

[Anonymous]

I think either approach can be justified.

The adverse inference mechanism was thought up by the Commissioners as a way of bringing some defective claim decisions into appeal jurisdiction, because decisions made under the information gathering regs were excluded by the D&A Schedule. The amendments to the Regs from December 2004 were supposed to make adverse inference unnecessary, but I think it still has its place in various situations and I think this is one. You have a very strong basis for believing that your claimant no longer occupies the dwelling as his home (whether his landlord still expects him to pay rent is immaterial unless he resurfaces with a compelling two-homes argument); you have attempted to visit him unsuccessfully, so you can safely assume that he ceased to occupy the dwelling at the very latest from the time you found out. That would give you an effective date on which to hang your superseding decision.

Alternatively, you can suspend because a question has arisen, at the same time going through the pointless ritual of asking for evidence of continued occupation, then terminate a month later because the claimant has failed to cooperate with your information request. There is no need for an effective date as such – you just don’t release any of the suspended payments.

I think either of those approaches is reasonable; if I had to choose I would lean very slightly towards suspension and termination as the purist option.

[Author]

Posts